Valencia College, Lake Nona Campus

“Accidental Anarchy” – An Analysis of Jodie Foster’s Money Monster

When I write my articles, I try to write about a central theme: where it succeeds, why it should resonate, etc. This makes it a little harder to show where a film goes wrong. Jodie Foster’s Money Monster has given me a clear reason to write why her film is a failure in thematic exploration. The idea of anger toward big business and Wall Street is something I share, but there has to be a sense of artistry or finesse when covering topics like this. Angrily screaming that the system is broken is not how effective messages are spread. There needs to be a sense of caution. What I am trying to make notion to is the message that Jodie Foster places in Money Monster; that terrorism in the name of the middle man is acceptable.

It is not a secret that Jodie Foster has been an expressive activist against Wall Street antics. There is nothing wrong with Jodie’s stance, but the way she goes about her message fulfills a stereotype that often is mocked or laughed at. She is most likely an activist who seeks positive change, but really has no idea what to do about it. The character of Kyle Budwell would be what Jodie sees as a man who deserves justice. That for some reason, his lack of foresight of investing into a firm that a tv personality recommended would actually need vindication by the end of the film. The story does find itself weaving into the idea of how corporations can actually manipulate entire markets with little effort, but all things considered, the entire revelation would not have happened had Kyle Budwell not come up to hold a television personality hostage after making a bad investment.

The entire story teeters on the notion that it is okay that Kyle does this. His actions are perfectly fine, because in the end, the corporation that a phony egomaniacal television personality recommended investing in was actually doing some shady business. So when we sit through an hour of an ignorant lower-class man holding a tv station hostage to try and get his money back, we are supposed to agree that his motivations are necessary for change in this nation? There needs to be thoughts against this. Even I, who wrote earlier last year on the need for change on big business, can see that this is complete nonsense propaganda.

When a man walks into somewhere with a bomb strapped to his chest, I do not care if his intentions are world peace, his message is entirely ruined. There is never a situation where a hostage can be taken and the assailant has a good point to his intentions. Jodie Foster, take a look at what you are putting across to your audience. These are the pieces of art that lead people to anarchy. There are ways to get change in this nation without resorting to violence. Even if your movie was enjoyable and decently made, it has become a disaster piece that advocates violence. There is no reason for this despite how much I agree with the need for change on Wall Street. The true hero of the film is Kyle Buckwell’s pregnant girlfriend, Molly, who actually comes to the television station to call him a “fucking moron.” Well put, Molly.